What does that have to do with anything? Refute what I said, add to it, or take it in a different direction. What you posted was a pointless link to a pdf that I'm not gonna waste time reading.

Simply put, you can't have your cake and eat it. You either uphold your morals or you make concessions. "But they're sooo talented, they're such a good performer, they are an asset to their craft. . ." is just making weak justifications about one's own moral compromises. Sure they may be minor, but at what point do they matter? How many small concessions does one make until they've completely gone against something?

Now I'm not saying paying the admission for the cost of a single Eastwood movie ticket or DVD automatically makes you a GOP'er for life, but if you stop and think about how you spend your money, where does it all really go (I bet there's political activist sites or some such that track this sort of thing)? Also like I said, it depends on how strongly you feel about the issue.

The Death of the Author is one of the single most important polemics against the idea of conflating criticism of an author with criticism of an idea. The only solid criticism of it I've read is teachers complaining that it is difficult to divest the "history of the text" (read: the author's backstory) with the "text in itself". Basically, you're either a mindless parrot with a few ideas about philosophy or you're an autonomous individual with the ability to make value-judgements on your own. This is actually the kind of thing that progressive philosophy embraces! Postconventional morality is such that we make our own decisions, and we are not obligated to agree with everything that someone says. Just because you like the Communist Manifesto does not mean you like Marx, Marxism, Communism, Stalinism, Capitalist reform, or anything of the sort. Anything else is actually quite conservative (read: oppressive, black-and-white) rhetoric as far as morality goes.

I agree that transparency is a good thing, but it gets kind of ridiculous. Just because Clint Eastwood may hold views that are contrary to your own does not mean his movies ought to be less enjoyable to you. After all, he's not Clint Eastwood in those movies (his name is, instead, a selling point, an image, a commodity), he's a character. I'm sure there's loads of conservatives that hated Gran Torino that thought his chair-talking was brilliant.

To demand that all the proceeds from your entertainment must be spent in a way that you agree with when a person has not signed any sort of formal agreement with you is absurd. After all, you're really just forcing your will onto an autonomous individual. You can be all brimstone and hellfire about the fact that he is racist or whatever, but you can neither stop him from having and expressing those views, nor can you tell him how to spend his money. Here's another example that has nothing to do with entertainment: You buy groceries at your favorite store, and the store's gross income (that your purchase is a part of) is distributed to everyone involved in the process, from the truckers to the guys unpacking things to the managers to the guy who just scanned your items. Now, this clerk happens to be a hard worker, employee of the month, and a Holocaust apologist who regularly donates to the KKK. He doesn't cause any problems at work and serves people of all races and genders without batting an eyelash. Are you going to stop shopping at that store? You might think yourself morally obligated to avoid that cashier, but every penny you give that store ends up trickling down to that person. Okay, so you decide to get them fired. All you've done is make a person lose their job simply because you don't like something about them.

Also, those corporations have saturated the market with products such that it is costly (time, money, effort, etc.) to find alternatives. Corporations like to stick their hands into as many cookie jars as they can. Better to impose more stringent antitrust laws to prevent that sort of thing from happening than to attempt to avoid using their products. Between companies that are pro-Internet censorship and all the other nasty stuff, you're basically left making yourself into one of those survivalist-types who gets labelled a "prepper" by the US government before the FBI starts stalking you

Pick your battles._________________If at first you don't succeed [in persuading or explaining something to me], then try and try again.

To be fair, in the example of a Holocaust apologist that donates to the KKK - that isn't just "make a person lose their job simply because you don't like something about them". That's making them lose their job because they are an awful human being by just about every civilized standard. If you're going to be a neo-nazi, you don't deserve shit._________________So attention must be paid!

Accepting the work of a person like that without first providing qualifiers as to why the merits of the work outweigh their unacceptable behaviors provides tacit acceptance for that behavior - especially when your acceptance leads to them earning money off of it.

At least in my case, i can't help read or watch something involving a racist, mysogynist, etc person without thinking about how their actions harm me or others, or how their views are shared by so many. I wonder how I would be treated if I worked with such a person. Would management help me or tell me to shut up? It is hard to enjoy a joke with the knowledge the person telling it wants me to die or thinks I'm a sick, perverted person who wants to harm their children - me, the person who makes cupcakes and draws adorable kitties for fun. If they met me, they'd likely be an ass to me, or talk about me behing my back.

If you've had a lot of insults and prejudice lobbed your way, it can be difficult, impossible, or just plain galling to 'sit there and take it' when you are actually paying for it

For an example, we can look at Roseanne Barr. I was really getting into rewatching her old sitcom because of how progressive she and it was for the time. I marvelled at how my parents let me watch it - and watched it with me. There was even an episode where a boy wants to dress as a witch for Halloween, and the well meaning father handles it badly. Other characters set him straight, and give him good advice - which is thrilling to see and hear if your own parents were awful about it. I was glad there was this model for people to look at and learn from.

Then Roseanne Barr made horrible disgusting transphobic comments about trans people and bathrooms. I learned more avout how she felt via the fallout over those comments. So I learned someone I thought was a voice of reason thinks I am a sexual predator. I learned this peron who had helped give parents helpful advice when talking about queerness to kids is actively causing harm by prolonging the life of old stereotypes. While her old stuff may still be good and useful, I can't watch that without constantly thinking of what she's said recently.

With regard to rape jokes, I like the ones that Wanda Sykes makes - about how if she had a detachable vagina, she could leave it at home if she wanted to go out running at night - and then if anyone tried to rape her she could just let them know she left it at home and her on her way. To me, that is funny. It is also different from jokes that boil down to 'rape itself is just hilarious, as is the concern some people have over it happening to them' and 'x person needs to be raped.' If those jokes aren't told in such a way that the author of them is mocking people who believe them, then the comedian's humor relies on agreement. The only way to find those things funny is to agree. And since such jokes are very widespread, I run into them all the time. So there is a constant hammeing home that rape is this awesome joke, and some people think people like me should be raped. I have literally no reason to support that kind of thing.

Lastly, it is just lazy humor. Boring. Really boring. I watch or read stuff like that, and I wonder, "So where is the joke?" You can stand on the stage and say, "Hamburgers are funny," or "buttocks are funny." But if your joke doesn't go beyond mentioning the thing itself, you aren't really sharing a joke.

What does that have to do with anything? Refute what I said, add to it, or take it in a different direction. What you posted was a pointless link to a pdf that I'm not gonna waste time reading.

Simply put, you can't have your cake and eat it. You either uphold your morals or you make concessions. "But they're sooo talented, they're such a good performer, they are an asset to their craft. . ." is just making weak justifications about one's own moral compromises. Sure they may be minor, but at what point do they matter? How many small concessions does one make until they've completely gone against something?

Now I'm not saying paying the admission for the cost of a single Eastwood movie ticket or DVD automatically makes you a GOP'er for life, but if you stop and think about how you spend your money, where does it all really go (I bet there's political activist sites or some such that track this sort of thing)? Also like I said, it depends on how strongly you feel about the issue.

The Death of the Author is one of the single most important polemics against the idea of conflating criticism of an author with criticism of an idea. The only solid criticism of it I've read is teachers complaining that it is difficult to divest the "history of the text" (read: the author's backstory) with the "text in itself". Basically, you're either a mindless parrot with a few ideas about philosophy or you're an autonomous individual with the ability to make value-judgements on your own. This is actually the kind of thing that progressive philosophy embraces! Postconventional morality is such that we make our own decisions, and we are not obligated to agree with everything that someone says. Just because you like the Communist Manifesto does not mean you like Marx, Marxism, Communism, Stalinism, Capitalist reform, or anything of the sort. Anything else is actually quite conservative (read: oppressive, black-and-white) rhetoric as far as morality goes.

I agree that transparency is a good thing, but it gets kind of ridiculous. Just because Clint Eastwood may hold views that are contrary to your own does not mean his movies ought to be less enjoyable to you. After all, he's not Clint Eastwood in those movies (his name is, instead, a selling point, an image, a commodity), he's a character. I'm sure there's loads of conservatives that hated Gran Torino that thought his chair-talking was brilliant.

To demand that all the proceeds from your entertainment must be spent in a way that you agree with when a person has not signed any sort of formal agreement with you is absurd. After all, you're really just forcing your will onto an autonomous individual. You can be all brimstone and hellfire about the fact that he is racist or whatever, but you can neither stop him from having and expressing those views, nor can you tell him how to spend his money. Here's another example that has nothing to do with entertainment: You buy groceries at your favorite store, and the store's gross income (that your purchase is a part of) is distributed to everyone involved in the process, from the truckers to the guys unpacking things to the managers to the guy who just scanned your items. Now, this clerk happens to be a hard worker, employee of the month, and a Holocaust apologist who regularly donates to the KKK. He doesn't cause any problems at work and serves people of all races and genders without batting an eyelash. Are you going to stop shopping at that store? You might think yourself morally obligated to avoid that cashier, but every penny you give that store ends up trickling down to that person. Okay, so you decide to get them fired. All you've done is make a person lose their job simply because you don't like something about them.

Also, those corporations have saturated the market with products such that it is costly (time, money, effort, etc.) to find alternatives. Corporations like to stick their hands into as many cookie jars as they can. Better to impose more stringent antitrust laws to prevent that sort of thing from happening than to attempt to avoid using their products. Between companies that are pro-Internet censorship and all the other nasty stuff, you're basically left making yourself into one of those survivalist-types who gets labelled a "prepper" by the US government before the FBI starts stalking you

Pick your battles.

Um, you didn't really make any sense, I don't see your point (I don't think you had one), and it just seems like you're going off on tangents, and I think overall you're missing the point. No one was talking about the merits of a work--it's irrelevant to the discussion. The entire discussion is already based upon the assumption that the work has merit.

What I was talking about is veal.

Veal taste GREAT, the texture is sublime. If you are trying to make certain food dishes come out perfect, you simply need it.

But it's morally abhorrent at it's source, so much so that even those who don't normally have issues with eating meat or how livestock is raised and kept, even those people won't eat veal.

Everyone who has issues with animal cruelty in food production, once they learn about how veal is produced, either decides to A) not eat veal, or B) compromise or change their values; once that veil of ignorance is removed, those become your only options. You can't have cruelty free beef and eat your veal too._________________...if a single leaf holds the eye, it will be as if the remaining leaves were not there.https://www.facebook.com/O.A.Drake/https://twitter.com/oadrake

I've actually prepared the same dish (a simple breaded veal) side-by-side with veal that was specifically labeled "pasture-raised" and veal that bore no such label, and, so, was presumably cage-raised. Unsurprisingly, the "pasture-raised" veal was firmer in texture--although still quite tender--than the unlabeled veal. Also unsurprising was that the "pasture-raised" veal was more expensive--almost $1.50 more, per pound. What was a bit surprising was that the "pasture-raised" veal actually had a definitely stronger and more pronounced "beefy" flavor than the unlabeled veal. It was almost comparable to the difference between USDA Grade Select steak (what is most typically found in grocers' meat departments) and USDA Grade Prime steak (four- and five-star restaurant quality meat.)

I won't make any kind of moral argument about it. Frankly, I find it unwise to get all that worked up about ones food in the first place. But, strictly from a viewpoint of quality: if you can afford pasture-raised veal, it's worth the higher price._________________I am only a somewhat arbitrary sequence of raised and lowered voltages to which your mind insists upon assigning meaning

This. Crating has been banned in Europe for a while now, and there are veal producers in the states who raise non-crated, non-tethered veal for consumption.

Darqcyde wrote:

And don't even try to give the whole "behind the veil of ignorance" weaksauce justification, because it's utterly morally vapid. Once you know what's behind the curtain you're automatically forced to make a moral choice. You either continue giving your support or you don't.

Don't be a idiot. Moral agency is not that simple, particularly when the product or activity you are supporting is not directly related to the questionable outcome. There is a world of difference between giving money to the KKK to further a neo-nazi agenda, and buying a movie ticket to a Clint Eastwood movie._________________The cat's indifferent or he's just furious, it seems that he's never neither

This. Crating has been banned in Europe for a while now, and there are veal producers in the states who raise non-crated, non-tethered veal for consumption.

Darqcyde wrote:

And don't even try to give the whole "behind the veil of ignorance" weaksauce justification, because it's utterly morally vapid. Once you know what's behind the curtain you're automatically forced to make a moral choice. You either continue giving your support or you don't.

Don't be a idiot. Moral agency is not that simple, particularly when the product or activity you are supporting is not directly related to the questionable outcome. There is a world of difference between giving money to the KKK to further a neo-nazi agenda, and buying a movie ticket to a Clint Eastwood movie.

I never said it was the same as giving money to the KKK, nor did I imply that. Also, thanks for the name calling, I hope it makes you happy to hate me, 'cuz it seems to have become a past time of yours. Also good to know that you jumped into the middle of a conversation without bothering actually reading what was said before, as in:

Darqcyde wrote:

Simply put, you can't have your cake and eat it. You either uphold your morals or you make concessions. "But they're sooo talented, they're such a good performer, they are an asset to their craft. . ." is just making weak justifications about one's own moral compromises. Sure they may be minor, but at what point do they matter? How many small concessions does one make until they've completely gone against something?

Now I'm not saying paying the admission for the cost of a single Eastwood movie ticket or DVD automatically makes you a GOP'er for life, but if you stop and think about how you spend your money, where does it all really go (I bet there's political activist sites or some such that track this sort of thing)? Also like I said, it depends on how strongly you feel about the issue.

You're making the assumption that a single concession automatically means an abandonment of one's morals, that's always going to be subjective. You realize that going against what I'm saying is pardoning all the fuckwads out there who support Chris Brown, right? It's people who are willing to make moral concessions that allow a known woman-beating fuckwad like him to still be marketable and successful. Does this mean they support abuse? No, of course not. But it does mean that they've passively, if not actively condoned it through their purchase choices. The man went so far as to throw it in people's faces via twitter, essentially bragging about how it didn't matter what he did, he was still successful. If people weren't monetarily supporting him, he wouldn't have been able to do that._________________...if a single leaf holds the eye, it will be as if the remaining leaves were not there.https://www.facebook.com/O.A.Drake/https://twitter.com/oadrake

I think the "but he's so talented" thing is pretty morally weak (a la Michael Vick, Chris Brown), because it's an argument that says if you have the right talents in the right amounts then it's okay to let you get away with doing awful things, and that's a level of moral relativism I'm not prepared to accept.

It's a matter of degree, though. If you've done something awful, even if you're wonderful in other regards, I've no interest in supporting you. My level of aversion is directly proportional to my level of disgust/anger/whatever._________________"Worse comes to worst, my people come first, but my tribe lives on every country on earth. Iíll do anything to protect them from hurt, the human race is what I serve." - Baba Brinkman

I think the "but he's so talented" thing is pretty morally weak (a la Michael Vick, Chris Brown), because it's an argument that says if you have the right talents in the right amounts then it's okay to let you get away with doing awful things, and that's a level of moral relativism I'm not prepared to accept.

Agreed, but, it is also what does indeed seem to happen on a disturbingly regular basis. Celebrities and the wealthy can and do get away with reduced sentences for wrong-doings and with continued success after scandal that those less well-off and less well-known could never expect._________________I am only a somewhat arbitrary sequence of raised and lowered voltages to which your mind insists upon assigning meaning

Aren't there cognitive biases that work against that influence us to make these concessions, like the Halo Effect and what not? I mean, is it a crutch for our moral disengagement or is it more direct of an effect than that, or is it a case by case sort of thing?

And just to be clear, I most certainly do make concessions, I'm not claiming to come from any sort of moral high ground.

I mean, it may make me feel somewhat guilty now, but god damn is Braveheart a great movie. I also feel kinda like a hypocritical bastard every time I shop at Wal-Mart, but I'm literately in a position where I need to make every penny count. Let's not even get into the guilt I feel over 90%+ of the clothing I own.

That said, I still think it's better to recognize where one does make concessions and try to limit them whenever possible or even make up for them; it's my whole 'actively striving towards a moral ideal being more important than blindly following some dogmatic regimen' outlook on life. I think taking a moral inventory of the choices we make is the type of introspection we all should be engaging in more often._________________...if a single leaf holds the eye, it will be as if the remaining leaves were not there.https://www.facebook.com/O.A.Drake/https://twitter.com/oadrake

Honestly I don't really care whether a director/writer/author/artist is a dick, it doesn't really impact how I feel about their work. Especially if they reveal their dickishness afterwards, because then I don't feel bad about spending my money on something that supports someone else's dickish behaviour.

And state that I never actually mentioned knowingly supporting someone who is a dick. I brought up the fact that I don't feel bad about supporting someone who later became a dick; because those are circumstances beyond my control (unless they became a dick because of the support they got, which is still a personal fault, not one on my behalf).

Also I'm interested if you care to elaborate on the issue with veal; I assumed you were discussing the issues with crating and poor conditions but I'm not sure if that was the entirety of the issue._________________So attention must be paid!

The halo effect is certainly present, but it's not a massive effect. There may be other biases involved, such as attribute substitution, wherein people avoid making complex decisions by instead answering a related but more automatic question. So, rather than make a complex evaluation of another's morals one might simply balance them in some subconscious, abstract, numerical way ("he's a -5 toward women, but a +7 musically, so he's okay"). I don't have any evidence of that, it's just a possibility. There are also (a variety of) egocentric biases, wherein things that one feels strongly about we tend to view negative things about them as outside of their control and positive things as within their control.

We did research on this with regard to the 2008 and 2012 elections. People who voted for Obama listed things like his personality and skills as an orator as why he won, while people who voted for McCain listed things like the sagging economy and the fact that GWB was unpopular as major reasons why he lost. So, we know ego extension to other people exists._________________"Worse comes to worst, my people come first, but my tribe lives on every country on earth. Iíll do anything to protect them from hurt, the human race is what I serve." - Baba Brinkman

And the author turned out to be a massive dick. Kinda makes it harder to enjoy...

Honestly I don't really care whether a director/writer/author/artist is a dick, it doesn't really impact how I feel about their work. Especially if they reveal their dickishness afterwards, because then I don't feel bad about spending my money on something that supports someone else's dickish behaviour. Case in point: Dilbert from 1990-2000, before Scott Adams created a blog and showed the world how idiotic he actually was. Also Clint Eastwood, until he started talking to empty chairs. Just because he's an insane republican who rants at inanimate objects now doesn't mean I can't enjoy Dirty Harry movies anymore.

This is where we get back to the "voting with your wallet" issue. Sure Clint's a looney old man talking to chairs, but he's a looney old man WITH A BIG FAT CHECKBOOK talking to chairs. Where does he get his money from? Consumers. Well, sure it's technically studios and sponsors and what not who believe that his work (and his famed derived from that work) will attract consumers, but that's the point. It needs to be made known that his works won't attract consumers i.e. you need to boycott that shit.

And don't even try to give the whole "behind the veil of ignorance" weaksauce justification, because it's utterly morally vapid. Once you know what's behind the curtain you're automatically forced to make a moral choice. You either continue giving your support or you don't.

The problem here is that people hold many different views AND my support for one thing does not immediately mean I support everything all the persons involved in that thing stand for.

Clint Eastwood supports gay marriage. And he's a conservative with a few bad ideas. Should I boycott his films or not?

Hell, I don't think Eastwood is a bad man. I don't endorse all his ideas, but at the same time I can't seriously claim he doesn't deserve any of my money unless he changes all his opinions.

Well that's the thing: it all depends on how important their stance is on various issues versus how important that issue is to you. Clint didn't really ruffle a lot of feathers because he was generally just supporting a conservative platform.

Well my point, which I didn't express clearly, was more that support for something does not necessarily entail support for things associated with that something. And that the scale of contributions and their use matters.

I do not actually disagree that one makes a moral choice here, but moral choices are things that we make all the time. Like, choices without a moral aspect are actually very rare.

I think the best way to think about this is to look at the persons. As in, aside from issues and stances I think one should only withhold support from those people who are actually bad persons. (one can and might be justified in withholding support from non-bad persons btw, but it is only with bad persons that one is obligated to.)

Of course, I can't actually look into the soul of everyone I've technically supported so such judgements of persons can only really be done through reading about them. It's inexact, but it's the best we can do.

(Also, I also absolutely think that you should distinguish between corporations and people. It's the same principle (bad companies should be boycotted) but it's completely different judgement and there are completely different factors at play from the side of the consumer and the maker. )_________________

When you start talking about guys like Eastwood, the line between corporation and individual starts to blur. Depending on the project, he could get paid not only as an actor, but director, and producer as well, and that's assuming he doesn't own stock in the studio producing it or the movie theaters showing it.